Shadow thread for MOA H2H Debate

Chat viewable by general public

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
Been thanked: 4 times

Shadow thread for MOA H2H Debate

Post #1

Post by rikuoamero »

As the title says, this is a shadow thread for the Head-to-Head debate currently in progress here
viewtopic.php?t=32046

Other than this post, I will NOT interact with this thread. I merely wanted to provide a set space for discussion on the debate for other users.
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Post #71

Post by Bust Nak »

Divine Insight wrote: What "observation"? According to you observations aren't permitted!
Observation as in things like red-shift, or the color of the sky. No where have I stated or implied that observations aren't permitted at all. You are attacking a strawman argument.
What do you mean when you say it's not "sound"? Not sound relative to what exactly?

Not sound relative to KNOWN PHYSICS? If so then you are in AGREEMENT with me once again.
I agree with you on lots of stuff, this is one of them. Where we disagree is whether logic can ever go against known physics, and the validity of the MOA.
There's no reason why an eternal universe can't be "Logically Sound" in pure imagination.
Soundness has to do with true premises, where are you gonna get true premises from if not from the real world with known physics?! You can't get logically sound argument without appealing to reality; logic necessarily has to match up to reality. Does that seem to you that I want you to ignore reality?
You could imagine physics that would accommodate that.

You can't say anything against an eternal universe save for pointing to the fact that it violates OBSERVED PHYSICS! But then you are back in agreement with me again.
I can indeed imagine physics that would accommodate that. No problems here.
Why not? There is nothing illogical about claiming that I can levitate. But that's not going to match up with reality.
The fact that you cannot levitate mean you can generate a logical contradiction from the premise that you can levitate, which in turn proves that the argument is unsound. Try claiming that illogical about claiming that you can imagine you can levitate instead. In a possible world you can levitate, just not in this one. Again, 100% match up of logic with reality.
In that case how can you argue against an eternal universe? Just take ENTROPY out of the picture and you're all set!
Why would I want to take entropy out of the picture? Going back to the top of this post, you are under the mistaken impression that I was arguing to ignore reality, when I have explicitly told you otherwise - and I quote: "I am not ignoring the observations of the actual characteristic of the real world, I am asking you not to ignore pure logic."
This is why you are totally WRONG if you think that Pure Philosophy can lead you to truth.
Oh? Pure philosophy lead me to the claim "IF the sky is orange, THEN the sky is orange." Am I totally wrong about that? Go on, affirm for me that "IF the sky is orange, THEN the sky is blue."
Without the REAL UNIVERSE demanding that entropy must be true, you would have absolutely no logical reason to invent it arbitrarily.
That much was never in dispute.
What do you mean by "true" premises?
I mean propositions that match up with reality.
Does a premise need to agree with the REAL WORLD in order to be true?
Of course.
Is so, then you are in agreement with me once again.
I know, all the more reason for you to read my posts more carefully before disagreeing with me. You are challenging me on things that I am not disputing with.
I already did prove that an omnipresent Jolly Green Giant must exists.
Tried and failed - premise #1 and/or #3 are false.
Especially if you allow me argument #2 that anything that it is "possible" must exist in some possible world.
I do grant you that: Step #2 is perfectly fine.
If you allow for that then you'd need to prove that a Jolly Green Giant can't exist in any possible world.

How are you going to do that?
That's easy, attack premise #1 and #3.
For the same reasons mathematicians do this ALL THE TIME. By accepting a premise that might be false you can potentially prove by contradiction that it must be false.
No mathematicians do that. ZERO. What mathematicians do accept are assumptions, as opposed to false premises. You know this, that's why you underlined "might be false." Why do you need me to point this out?
My argument is that if logical reasoning makes statements or conclusions about OUR WORLD that can be demonstrated to be false within OUR WORLD then that logical argument is necessarily false.

You seem to be arguing AGAINST that.
That's not what I am arguing against.
I also argue that if logical reasoning draws conclusions that make absolutely no statements that can be demonstrated to be false, then we can't necessarily say that it a flawed argument. Although it may indeed contain logical flaws as well, in that case then we can point to those and show that it's not even logical in any case.
I agree with that.
But you seem to want to claim that the MOA is perfectly logically valid (I disagree).
Correct. MOA is perfectly logically valid.
What you seem to be saying is that you believe you can argue against it because you believe that it's not a "sound" argument. But it's unclear what you even mean by "sound".
That's standard lingo that should be familiar to anyone who has interest in logic. Start here.
You have already claimed that to premise that our universe is eternal is "unsound" but why?
Because the premises in the arguments for an eternal universe are false.
But then you'd be in agreement with me [re: pointing to the actual universe and show that there is evidence for why it's not eternal]! So at that point I have no clue what you attempting to argue for.
The two major points I am arguing for are a) logical truths (i.e. tautologies, rules of inference, logical axioms) ALWAYS match up with reality, 100% of the time without exception; and b) sound arguments (i.e. true premises plus valid logic) ALWAYS generate truth, 100% of the time without exception.

Which means whenever your observation does not match up with an argument, you have made a mistake with your observation, and/or you have made a mistake with your argument. In other words, since logic and real world matches up 100%, when your observation and argument does not match up, that means your observation does not match up with the real world, or your argument does not match up with logic (or both.)

And then there are minor points on the validity of the MOA.
That wasn't my argument. My argument was that if you made a premise that the sky is orange and the actual sky is not orange then your wrong.

Obviously if the sky actually is orange then it's orange. Who would argue with that? :-k
Who indeed. Perhaps you should read what I am saying more carefully before disagreeing with me.
That's fine. At this point you are talking to yourself because I NEVER suggested that an actually orange sky is not orange. :roll:
You might have never meant to suggested that, but that's exactly what you did. The record will show that earlier you disagreed vehemently to my claim that "IF X is orange THEN it is orange, for all X." The same thing happened again above when you disagreed with me that pure philosophy can lead to the truth.
Where? In the "world" of my imagination? :-k

That's precisely the absurdity of pure philosophy.
What is so absurd about that?
Step #4 is making a statement about the ACTUAL WORLD we live in.
Correct, and it is a true statement about the ACTUAL WORLD we live in. It is indeed 100% true that "If an Omnipresent Jolly Green Giant exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world (our world)." This is trivially true since the actual world (our world) is a possible world.

You seem to be having problem processing the truth value of conditional statements. Are the following statements true or false?

a) IF the sky is orange THEN the sky is not blue.
b) IF Hillary won the election THEN she is the first female US president.
c) IF 1 does not equal 1 THEN unicorns exist.

The first two should be trivial, the last one is a bit trickier. It should be obvious that A->B can be true, without B being necessarily true.
Therefore if you accept that step #4 is TRUE then you have no choice but to take the position that our world is omnibenevolent according to the logic of the MOA.
Incorrect, not without premise 1 and 3. (Plus the unstated premise that omnibenevolent being implies omnibenevolent world.)

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Post #72

Post by Bust Nak »

Kenisaw wrote: So it can be logically valid, but it cannot be stated that it is actually valid?
In the context of arguments, there is only one kind of validity, logically valid IS actually valid. What I think you are referring to as "actually valid," we already have a term for - sound.
rikuoamero wrote: I'm in agreement with DI on this one. Try this logical argument.

Premise 1: All men are immortal
Premise 2: Tom is a man
Conclusion: Therefore, Tom is immortal.

That is logically valid. It does not contradict itself, the conclusion flows logically from the premises.
However, sound it is not, given that it contradicts observed reality (no man has been observed to be immortal).
Don't you mean in agreement with me? DI is the one who is saying since Tom is mortal, the argument is invalid. What's more he is saying that since Tom is mortal, we can conclude that "All men are immortal & Tom is a man -> Tom is immortal" is false.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Post #73

Post by Divine Insight »

Bust Nak wrote:
Kenisaw wrote: So it can be logically valid, but it cannot be stated that it is actually valid?
In the context of arguments, there is only one kind of validity, logically valid IS actually valid. What I think you are referring to as "actually valid," we already have a term for - sound.
rikuoamero wrote: I'm in agreement with DI on this one. Try this logical argument.

Premise 1: All men are immortal
Premise 2: Tom is a man
Conclusion: Therefore, Tom is immortal.

That is logically valid. It does not contradict itself, the conclusion flows logically from the premises.
However, sound it is not, given that it contradicts observed reality (no man has been observed to be immortal).
Don't you mean in agreement with me? DI is the one who is saying since Tom is mortal, the argument is invalid. What's more he is saying that since Tom is mortal, we can conclude that "All men are immortal & Tom is a man -> Tom is immortal" is false.
What I'm saying is that since we can clearly see that some men die. And we only need one example of this. Then we have shown the premise #1 is false.

However, UNTIL we can show that at lest some men die there's no way that we can claim that premise #1 is false.

I hold that it's the same way with the MOA argument. There is no way that you can deny the premise of the MGB UNTIL you run into a conclusion that conflicts with the real world.

In fact, if our world was indeed perfectly moral, then how could you argue against the MOA? Other than to point out that argument #2 is logically invalid, AND the conclusion #6 DOES NOT FOLLOW from argument #5.

But you have actually argued that #2, #5 and #6 are logically valid!

I say they aren't. And that doesn't even depend on the real world at all. They are just flat out logically non sequitur. You seem to be in disagreement with that.

You have argued that there's something wrong with arguments #1 and #3, but I don't see how you can argue against either one of those, especially if you argue that #2 is valid. If you accept #2 and refuse to reject #4 then I don't see where you would have any choice but accept the conclusion of the whole shebang.

The only thing is that at that point you would also need to conclude that our world is indeed perfectly moral according to this logical argument. You couldn't claim that since our world isn't perfectly moral there must be something wrong with the argument, because if you do that then you are in agreement with my position.

But you have been arguing against my position for days now.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Post #74

Post by Divine Insight »

@ Bust Nak,

Let's take this one step at a time.

Here's what we have:

Definition of our MGB:

Premise #1: Omniscient: All knowing, knowing the truth value of all propositions.
Premise #2: Omnipotent: Can do anything that is logically possible.
Premise #3: Omnipresent: Presence is manifested, whether physically or spiritually, everywhere, at any given time
Premise #4: Omnibenevolent: The ultimate source of goodness, morally perfect.


We can assume that the above entity can exist at least in our imagination (i.e. in the world of pure unrestrained thought)

So now let's start our MOA argument:

Argument #1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists

Now let's stop right here.

Can you find any invalid "pure logic" in the above argument at this point?

Can you logically reject Argument #1 WITHOUT referring to restrictions based on observations made about the real world? And, if so, please explain how you reject Argument #1 using pure logic.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Post #75

Post by Bust Nak »

Divine Insight wrote: What I'm saying is that since we can clearly see that some men die. And we only need one example of this. Then we have shown the premise #1 is false.
DING DING DING, we have a winner. What you have identified here, is a valid argument that is not sound.

Notice the difference between "the argument is faulty because premise #1 is false" and "the argument is faulty because 'all men are immortal & Tom is a man -> Tom is immortal' is false?"
I hold that it's the same way with the MOA argument. There is no way that you can deny the premise of the MGB UNTIL you run into a conclusion that conflicts with the real world.
Or an internal contradiction, that's a rather big omission.
In fact, if our world was indeed perfectly moral, then how could you argue against the MOA? Other than to point out that argument #2 is logically invalid, AND the conclusion #6 DOES NOT FOLLOW from argument #5.
By attacking #1 and #3. I told you that repeatedly. Those are the only places where you can attack the argument, because the other steps are indisputable.
But you have actually argued that #2, #5 and #6 are logically valid!
Correct!
I say they aren't. And that doesn't even depend on the real world at all. They are just flat out logically non sequitur. You seem to be in disagreement with that.
That's right, 2, 4 and 5 are perfectly valid, if you also grant 1 and 3 (which you did) then 6 follows necessarily. Check mate atheists!
You have argued that there's something wrong with arguments #1 and #3, but I don't see how you can argue against either one of those, especially if you argue that #2 is valid. If you accept #2 and refuse to reject #4 then I don't see where you would have any choice but accept the conclusion of the whole shebang.
Look in the mirror: You have argued that there's something wrong with arguments #2 and #4, but those are in fact perfectly true statements. You accepted #1 and #3, it is you who have no choice but accept the conclusion of the whole shebang.
You couldn't claim that since our world isn't perfectly moral there must be something wrong with the argument, because if you do that then you are in agreement with my position.
There IS something wrong with the argument - Premise 1 and/or 3 are false. I called you out because you misidentified where the flaw is. You cannot say because the world isn't perfectly moral therefore step #4 is invalid.

I only agree with you as far as the argument being faulty. Where I've been arguing against you position for days is where the flaw is. (Plus whether logical truth can ever contradict the real world.)
Let's take this one step at a time.

Here's what we have:

Definition of our MGB:

Premise #1: Omniscient: All knowing, knowing the truth value of all propositions.
Premise #2: Omnipotent: Can do anything that is logically possible.
Premise #3: Omnipresent: Presence is manifested, whether physically or spiritually, everywhere, at any given time
Premise #4: Omnibenevolent: The ultimate source of goodness, morally perfect.

We can assume that the above entity can exist at least in our imagination (i.e. in the world of pure unrestrained thought)
Okay, with the emphasis on assumption.
So now let's start our MOA argument:

Argument #1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists

Now let's stop right here.

Can you find any invalid "pure logic" in the above argument at this point?
No.
Can you logically reject Argument #1 WITHOUT referring to restrictions based on observations made about the real world?
No.

Where are you going with this? Did I or did I not make it perfectly clear that, and I quote: "no where have I stated or implied that observations aren't permitted at all. You are attacking a strawman argument?" That was literally the first point I made in the post you responded to. Why are you setting up these arbitrary restrictions against real world observation?

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Post #76

Post by Divine Insight »

Bust Nak wrote:
Divine Insight wrote: What I'm saying is that since we can clearly see that some men die. And we only need one example of this. Then we have shown the premise #1 is false.
DING DING DING, we have a winner. What you have identified here, is a valid argument that is not sound.

Notice the difference between "the argument is faulty because premise #1 is false" and "the argument is faulty because 'all men are immortal & Tom is a man -> Tom is immortal' is false?"
That's what I've been saying all along. But there's no way you could show that "Tom is immortal" is false without pointing to the real world and showing that people actulally die here.

So thus far you are in perfect agreement with me. You are using observations of the real world for you argument against "Tom is a man -> Tom is immortal". Without using the real world evidence there's no way you could contest this.
Bust Nak wrote:
I hold that it's the same way with the MOA argument. There is no way that you can deny the premise of the MGB UNTIL you run into a conclusion that conflicts with the real world.
Or an internal contradiction, that's a rather big omission.
But you haven't shown an internal contradiction and that's what I'm asking you for.
Bust Nak wrote:
In fact, if our world was indeed perfectly moral, then how could you argue against the MOA? Other than to point out that argument #2 is logically invalid, AND the conclusion #6 DOES NOT FOLLOW from argument #5.
By attacking #1 and #3. I told you that repeatedly. Those are the only places where you can attack the argument, because the other steps are indisputable.
But you can't attack #1 until you have show via the real world that something like #4 is a contradiction with the real world. So you are using the essence of #4 in any case.

Also, you can't even attack #3 at all. If #1 is possible, then what's wrong with #3? Nothing! But you can't show that #1 is false until you use something like #4 to show that #1 can't be true BECAUSE our real world conflicts with it.

So you basically end up using the fact that #4 is false to show that #1 has to be false as well. You are doing this whether you realize it or not.
Bust Nak wrote:
But you have actually argued that #2, #5 and #6 are logically valid!
Correct!
Well, if you accept that #2 is a valid logical statement then the whole thing becomes questionable. Because after all #1 is TRUE if we ignore the fact that our world exists. In other words, there's no reason why we can't imagine an MGB being possible in pure thought. The only thing that prevents us from doing this is the fact that our real world exists as evidence to the contrary.

So without the real world to conflict with this you'd have no choice but to accept #1, and then you GRANT #2. So now you can't rebuke anything until you get to #4 where you are GIVEN PERMISSION to use our world as evidence. Argument #4 makes statements about our world, and so at that very moment the philosophy who is making this argument can NO LONGER claim to be speaking in terms of "pure logic". He or she must accept the evidence of the real world at argument #4. So that's where this argument shoots itself in the foot big time.
Bust Nak wrote:
I say they aren't. And that doesn't even depend on the real world at all. They are just flat out logically non sequitur. You seem to be in disagreement with that.
That's right, 2, 4 and 5 are perfectly valid, if you also grant 1 and 3 (which you did) then 6 follows necessarily. Check mate atheists!
Apparently then this is where you and I disagree. You accept #2 as being logically valid. I don't. You accept that #6 FOLLOWS from #5. I don't. So I would reject the MOA on ground of being logically flawed. Take #4 out entirely and it's still not a logically valid argument.
Bust Nak wrote:
You have argued that there's something wrong with arguments #1 and #3, but I don't see how you can argue against either one of those, especially if you argue that #2 is valid. If you accept #2 and refuse to reject #4 then I don't see where you would have any choice but accept the conclusion of the whole shebang.
Look in the mirror: You have argued that there's something wrong with arguments #2 and #4, but those are in fact perfectly true statements. You accepted #1 and #3, it is you who have no choice but accept the conclusion of the whole shebang.
I totally disagree with you here, and I point to the proof by contradiction used by mathematicians to proof that the square root of 2 cannot be rational.

Remember they ACCEPTED the original premise the the square root of 2 is RATIONAL. And then this lead to an obvious contradiction, so they were able to go back and say, "That original premise must have then been false".

So I disagree with you that once you accept something (for the sake of the argument) that you can't then later go back and say, "Hey that must have been false".

You make it sound like as if once I accept argument #1 I'm stuck with having accepted it for LIFE! That's absolute baloney.

Just like the Mathematicians do with the proof by contradiction for the square root of 2 I can do the very same thing here. Argument #4 SHOWS CLEARLY that the original premise must then be false.

You are saying that I'm not allowed to do that. But that would be like telling a mathematician that they are NEVER allowed to use proofs by contradiction because once they accept a premise then can never go back.

That's not going to fly.

Bust Nak wrote:
You couldn't claim that since our world isn't perfectly moral there must be something wrong with the argument, because if you do that then you are in agreement with my position.
There IS something wrong with the argument - Premise 1 and/or 3 are false. I called you out because you misidentified where the flaw is. You cannot say because the world isn't perfectly moral therefore step #4 is invalid.
I'm not saying that step #4 is invalid. To the contrary it certainly follows from all the previous steps, HOWEVER, since the conclusion of #4 is obviously false this so-called "Proof of the existence of an MGB", actually BECOMES a "Proof-by-Contradiction" that the MGB cannot exist.

That's my position. The fact that #4 for clearly not true with respect to the real world shows that we have arrived at a verifiable contradiction.

You haven't been able to show that Argument #1 is verifiable false. But I have.
Bust Nak wrote: I only agree with you as far as the argument being faulty. Where I've been arguing against you position for days is where the flaw is. (Plus whether logical truth can ever contradict the real world.)
Well, I agree that Argument #1 ends up being false. But you could hardly proof that without at least pointing to something like the consequences brought up in #4. So you've got to be using something like #4 somewhere in your rebuttal to the MOA.
Let's take this one step at a time.
Bust Nak wrote: Here's what we have:

Definition of our MGB:

Premise #1: Omniscient: All knowing, knowing the truth value of all propositions.
Premise #2: Omnipotent: Can do anything that is logically possible.
Premise #3: Omnipresent: Presence is manifested, whether physically or spiritually, everywhere, at any given time
Premise #4: Omnibenevolent: The ultimate source of goodness, morally perfect.

We can assume that the above entity can exist at least in our imagination (i.e. in the world of pure unrestrained thought)
Okay, with the emphasis on assumption.
So now let's start our MOA argument:

Argument #1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists

Now let's stop right here.

Can you find any invalid "pure logic" in the above argument at this point?
No.
Then at that point in the argument you have no reason to reject Argument #1 as being false. So at that point, you have to accept it too.

Bust Nak wrote:
Can you logically reject Argument #1 WITHOUT referring to restrictions based on observations made about the real world?
No.
Well, there you go. Clearly you can't rebut the MOA until some connection is shown between this argument and the real world.
Bust Nak wrote: Where are you going with this? Did I or did I not make it perfectly clear that, and I quote: "no where have I stated or implied that observations aren't permitted at all. You are attacking a strawman argument?" That was literally the first point I made in the post you responded to. Why are you setting up these arbitrary restrictions against real world observation?
Because in the MOA argument the real world isn't even mentioned until step #4.

So up to that point the MOA might not include the real world, in which case we could hardly object to it.

We might not have realized previously that the omnipresence attributed to the MBG would need to include omnipresence in our world. But in step #4 the MOA makes it crystal clear that they are including our world in this argument.

So we really don't have "permission" to use real world observations to refute this argument until we get to step #4 where the MOA demands that it is indeed making statements about our world.

Keep in mind that there are logically sounds systems that may not exist in our world at all. The three types of geometries in mathematics comes to mind. Our world maybe strictly "flat" or Euclidean. Yet the logical formalism of spherical and hyperbolic geometries are perfectly logically sound. Some of those geometries may or may not exist in our actual world.

But all logic does not need to apply to our world.

In fact, think of physics, and especially String Theory. Scientists are proposing that there may exist something 10^500 different types of universes all having different physics depending on how strings are curled up in the Big Bang of those universe.

All those universes would then be logically valid and we couldn't use the fact that they conflict with our universe to dismiss them.

You has suggested before that all logic must be in harmony with the real world. But that's clearly not true. There are logically consistent systems that defy the physics of our world.

So if a logical argument doesn't make statements about our actual physical world, then you can't dismiss it as being "faulty" simply because it demands conclusions that clearly wouldn't be true on our world.

In the case of the MOA they shot themselves in the foot by demanding that their MGB is "omnipresent" in all worlds including ours. So they can't even claim that their MGB could exist at all. The mere fact that our world exists proves that their MGB cannot exist at all as they have defined it.

So Argument #4 is actually the Atheist's "Salvation" in this particular argument. That's the argument right there that does the MOA in for good. There's no way to for the MOA to come back from the obvious falsehood of Argument #4.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Post #77

Post by Bust Nak »

Divine Insight wrote: That's what I've been saying all along.
Incorrect. Your post history will show otherwise. Instead of saying premise #1 was false, you were recorded as attributing the error to step #4 explicitly on multiple occasions:

"4.... Now we have a serious failure ... This is the ERROR in this argument."

"The flaw is in step #4 ... Upon actual OBSERVATION we discover that this is not true."

"The MOA argument is sound! Save for step #4!"


"It has already proven the fallacy of its MGB in step #4 but fails to acknowledge this."

"It fails on step #4 by refusing to observe the true nature of the real world."


"We'll just have to disagree on [Step #4 is fine logically, REGARDLESS of MBG can or cannot exist in our world] then."

"I never said that step #4 was the ONLY thing wrong with it. But it's clearly one obvious fail."
But there's no way you could show that "Tom is immortal" is false without pointing to the real world and showing that people actulally die here.
Sure, what of it?
So thus far you are in perfect agreement with me.
"Thus far" if you take that post in isolation. You thought the flaw lies in step #4, I say the flaw is with premise #1 and #3. Going to the analogy with Tom, you thought "all men are immortal plus Tom is a man does not imply Tom is immortal" where as I am saying "all men are not immortal."
You are using observations of the real world for you argument against "Tom is a man -> Tom is immortal". Without using the real world evidence there's no way you could contest this.
That was never in dispute.
But you haven't shown an internal contradiction and that's what I'm asking you for.
Okay, as long as you acknowledge that internal contradictions are also sufficient to sink an argument. That goes against your earlier contention that pure logic cannot get to the truth.
But you can't attack #1 until you have show via the real world that something like #4 is a contradiction with the real world. So you are using the essence of #4 in any case.
Why is that a problem? There is a huge difference between using #4 in an counter argument, and calling #4 false. The former is perfectly logical, the latter is not. You are guilty of the latter.
Also, you can't even attack #3 at all. If #1 is possible, then what's wrong with #3?
Quite simply because there are possible worlds where no beings exist.
So you basically end up using the fact that #4 is false...

YOU ARE DOING IT AGAIN - step #4 is NOT FALSE.

...to show that #1 has to be false as well. You are doing this whether you realize it or not.

No, #1 is false, but step 4 is perfectly fine.

Well, if you accept that #2 is a valid logical statement then the whole thing becomes questionable. Because after all #1 is TRUE if we ignore the fact that our world exists.

Why would you want to ignore the fact that our world exists?

In other words, there's no reason why we can't imagine an MGB being possible in pure thought.

Of course there is.

The only thing that prevents us from doing this is the fact that our real world exists as evidence to the contrary.

No, there are pure thought reasons to reject premise #1 and/or #3 too.

Apparently then this is where you and I disagree.

Why is this just apparent now? I have been exceeding explicit in identifying where we disagree.

You accept #2 as being logically valid. I don't. You accept that #6 FOLLOWS from #5. I don't. So I would reject the MOA on ground of being logically flawed. Take #4 out entirely and it's still not a logically valid argument.

"Still not a logically valid argument" implies it was not a logically valid argument. That implication is incorrect. MOA is valid. Again I point to the difference between validity and soundness.

I totally disagree with you here, and I point to the proof by contradiction used by mathematicians to proof that the square root of 2 cannot be rational.

Remember they ACCEPTED the original premise the the square root of 2 is RATIONAL. And then this lead to an obvious contradiction, so they were able to go back and say, "That original premise must have then been false".

No no no, we've been through this, they ASSUME the square root of 2 is RATIONAL. No more. Had they ACCEPTED the original premise the square root of 2 is RATIONAL, then they would have generated a real world contradiction, we all go insane, then reality explodes in a shower of impossible shapes.

So I disagree with you that once you accept something (for the sake of the argument) that you can't then later go back and say, "Hey that must have been false".

Then say premise #1 is false, and stop calling step #4 false/invalid.

Argument #4 SHOWS CLEARLY that the original premise must then be false.

Note how this is a completely different statement to "step #4 is clearly false?" How is this not completely obvious?

You are saying that I'm not allowed to do that.

Incorrect, I am saying you are not allowed to call step #4 false. That's a huge difference. I have been very explicit about that - even in the very post you were replying to in the very next point which I've bolded. You are attacking a strawman.

There IS something wrong with the argument - Premise 1 and/or 3 are false. I called you out because you misidentified where the flaw is. You cannot say because the world isn't perfectly moral therefore step #4 is invalid.


I'm not saying that step #4 is invalid.

Incorrect. You might have never meant to say #4 is invalid, but that's exactly what you have stated explicitly on multiple occasions. You repeatedly claimed that step #4 is invalid and/or false. Two more examples in this very post, which I highlighted in red.

To the contrary it certainly follows from all the previous steps, HOWEVER, since the conclusion of #4 is obviously false this so-called "Proof of the existence of an MGB", actually BECOMES a "Proof-by-Contradiction" that the MGB cannot exist.

You say this and yet there you are still calling #4 false/invalid when it is the conclusion from #4 that is false.

That's my position. The fact that #4 for clearly not true

ARGGG, you are doing it again! QUIT IT. How are you not registering the difference between "the conclusion of #4 is obviously false" and "#4 is clearly not true?"

If you only address one point in my post then let this be it: I challenge youto identify the truth value of the following statements:

a) IF Hillary won the election THEN she is the first female US president.
b) Hillary is the first female US president.

Assuming you accept that a) is true, what would you say to someone who states "statement a) is obviously false because [insert any number of equivalent reasons you used against step #4 here]?"

You haven't been able to show that Argument #1 is verifiable false.

That's because you limited me to just #1 in isolation. That's not a very reasonable request, is it?

Well, I agree that Argument #1 ends up being false. But you could hardly proof that without at least pointing to something like the consequences brought up in #4. So you've got to be using something like #4 somewhere in your rebuttal to the MOA.

Actually you could have stopped at #3. 1 to 3 is enough to generate a contradiction.

Then at that point in the argument you have no reason to reject Argument #1 as being false. So at that point, you have to accept it too.

I make do with bearing it in mind that it is not trivially false at a glance, and evaluate its truth value as I go.

Well, there you go. Clearly you can't rebut the MOA until some connection is shown between this argument and the real world.

There is step #3, there is some connection between that and the real world. No need to wait for #4.

Because in the MOA argument the real world isn't even mentioned until step #4...

That's no reason to limit me from appealing to the real world. Besides, step 3 mentions possible worlds, that's enough for us to attack.

Keep in mind that there are logically sounds systems that may not exist in our world at all. The three types of geometries in mathematics comes to mind. Our world maybe strictly "flat" or Euclidean. Yet the logical formalism of spherical and hyperbolic geometries are perfectly logically sound. Some of those geometries may or may not exist in our actual world.

You do realise spheres and splines exist in our actual world don't you? Those geometries absolutely exist in our actual world. The only mathematical example that could remotely be used to support your point are imaginary numbers.

In fact, think of physics, and especially String Theory. Scientists are proposing that there may exist something 10^500 different types of universes all having different physics depending on how strings are curled up in the Big Bang of those universe.

All those universes would then be logically valid and we couldn't use the fact that they conflict with our universe to dismiss them.

What are you suggesting here, that we should reject String Theory because the possible universes it predicts, isn't our universe?

You has suggested before that all logic must be in harmony with the real world. But that's clearly not true. There are logically consistent systems that defy the physics of our world.

You mean possible universes with different laws of physics? How are those supposed to be examples of logic that are not in harmony with the real world? Be specific.

So if a logical argument doesn't make statements about our actual physical world, then you can't dismiss it as being "faulty" simply because it demands conclusions that clearly wouldn't be true on our world.

You are forgetting internal contradictions again.

In the case of the MOA they shot themselves in the foot by demanding that their MGB is "omnipresent" in all worlds including ours. So they can't even claim that their MGB could exist at all. The mere fact that our world exists proves that their MGB cannot exist at all as they have defined it.

Well, the same applies to all argument for Omni-style God. The end goal is to prove that God exist in our world.

So Argument #4 is actually the Atheist's "Salvation" in this particular argument. That's the argument right there that does the MOA in for good. There's no way to for the MOA to come back from the obvious falsehood of Argument #4.

Or #3.

benchwarmer
Guru
Posts: 2283
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 1957 times
Been thanked: 735 times

Post #78

Post by benchwarmer »

Bust Nak wrote: If you only address one point in my post then let this be it: I challenge youto identify the truth value of the following statements:

a) IF Hillary won the election THEN she is the first female US president.
b) Hillary is the first female US president.
Hey Bust, I'll take a swing at this one :) First, you need to fix some tense issues:

a) IF Hillary won the election, THEN she WOULD BE the first female US president.
b) Hillary is the first female US president.

Premise (a) is fine. It defines an outcome based on the truth of the "IF" statement.
Premise (b) simply defines something as true and quickly falls apart in the real world.

These 2 premises don't support each other. (b) is the type of thing we are all getting our panties in a knot over. I know my undies are bunched up pretty good when people simply define things into existence and expect us to nod our heads and believe.

FtK and the MOA are failing for me because of things like (b).

Have a good one Bust! It's kind of refreshing to tangle with a non-theist, there's little risk of you throwing a Bible at me :)

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Post #79

Post by Divine Insight »

It appears to me that you simply aren't paying attention to what I've been saying all along.
Bust Nak wrote:
So you basically end up using the fact that #4 is false...
YOU ARE DOING IT AGAIN - step #4 is NOT FALSE.
I have always agreed with this in terms of pure imaginary logic that is totally detached from the real world!

If we didn't have the real world to point to, then there is no way that we could falsify step #4. Step #4 is not "false" in and of itself as a purely logical statement. It's only false when we actually LOOK at the real world and recognize that this is a false statement about our world.

If our world was perfectly moral and benevolent, then there would be nothing wrong with step #4. So step #4 is not "false" in any purely logical sense. I've always been agreeing with that. But it's clearly false when we recognize that out world is not omnibenevolent. Only then can we demonstrated as a "proof by contradiction" that step #1 was indeed false.
Bust Nak wrote:
...to show that #1 has to be false as well. You are doing this whether you realize it or not.
No, #1 is false, but step 4 is perfectly fine.
But how do you PROVE that #1 is false without referencing the REAL WORLD?

You haven't shown how to do that yet. And until you do, then you absolutely NEED to show that step #4 is false (because our world exists!) thus proving by contradiction that #1 necessarily must have been false.

Without step #4 (or some other reference to the real world not being benevolent) how are you going to PROVE that step #1 is false?

If you can do that, I'd be glad to see you rproof. But thus far I haven't seen you do this, or anything close to it.

What is your justification for demanding that #1 is false? :-k

And keep in mind here that if you use the observation that our world is not benevolent in any way, then you have basically used #4 to prove that #1 is false.

And the only way you can do that is to show that #4 is indeed false.

You ask:
Bust Nak wrote: Why would you want to ignore the fact that our world exists?
Excuse me, but that has NEVER been by position at any point of our conversation!

My position is precisely the opposite. We can't ignore the real world in this particular argument because this particular argument is making statements specifically about our world (i.e. in Step #4)

And keep in mind that other perfectly "logically sound" arguments can be made for the existence of worlds that our totally different from our world. In those cases you have no choice but to ignore our world because those arguments aren't claiming to make any statement about our world.

But the MOA clearly makes a statement about our world in step #4. So that's its lethal mistake.

You can't dismiss argument #1 in the MOA without basically using #4 anyway.

And you haven't shown how that could be done.

So until you do show how that can be done your objections are moot.

Consider the following exchange:
Bust Nak wrote:
In other words, there's no reason why we can't imagine an MGB being possible in pure thought.
Of course there is.
The only thing that prevents us from doing this is the fact that our real world exists as evidence to the contrary.
No, there are pure thought reasons to reject premise #1 and/or #3 too.
I'm waiting for you to actually SHOW that this is the case. Demonstrate to me how you can dismiss #1 and #3 WITHOUT referencing the real world.

And if you can't do that, then you aren't using "pure thought reasons" to reject these premises. Instead you are using the science of observing the actual physical world to draw your conclusions from.
Bust Nak wrote: "Still not a logically valid argument" implies it was not a logically valid argument. That implication is incorrect. MOA is valid. Again I point to the difference between validity and soundness.
Apparently you haven't been listening to a word I've said from the very beginning. I too agree that the MOA would be hard to dismiss if not for #4 where it actually makes statements about the real world.

I think were you and I ultimately disagree is on step #2. It totally do not accept that if something is "possible" then it necessarily must exist in some world. I hold that just because something is possible doesn't mean that it has to exist.

It's certainly possible that I could have married Catherine Zeta-Jones. But that doesn't mean that there MUST BE a world out there where Catherine Zeta-Jones is my wife. That's just absolute nonsense. So we disagree about step #2 to be sure.

In fact, if this is a "RULE" of pure modal logic, then pure modal logic is itself absurd. That would be a logic of "pure imagination" and would only be talking about purely imaginary "worlds". Why should anyone care about purely imaginary worlds that don't exist anywhere other than in our imagination?

So I'm not even saying that you are wrong. If this is a principle of Modal Logic, then I reject Modal Logic. :D

I totally reject step #2 as being taken as necessarily "TRUE". Rule or not. If this is a axiom of Modal Logic, then I reject Modal Logic. Pure and simple.

In fact, I just looked up Modal Logic on Wiki and in their very first paragraph they answer this question and demonstrate that I am RIGHT!
Modal Logic

Modal logic is a type of formal logic primarily developed in the 1960s that extends classical propositional and predicate logic to include operators expressing modality. A modal—a word that expresses a modality—qualifies a statement. For example, the statement "John is happy" might be qualified by saying that John is usually happy, in which case the term "usually" is functioning as a modal. The traditional alethic modalities, or modalities of truth, include possibility ("Possibly, p", "It is possible that p"), necessity ("Necessarily, p", "It is necessary that p"), and impossibility ("Impossibly, p", "It is impossible that p").[1] Other modalities that have been formalized in modal logic include temporal modalities, or modalities of time (notably, "It was the case that p", "It has always been that p", "It will be that p", "It will always be that p"),[2][3] deontic modalities (notably, "It is obligatory that p", and "It is permissible that p"), epistemic modalities, or modalities of knowledge ("It is known that p")[4] and doxastic modalities, or modalities of belief ("It is believed that p").[5]

A formal modal logic represents modalities using modal operators. For example, "It might rain today" and "It is possible that rain will fall today" both contain the notion of possibility. In a modal logic this is represented as an operator, "Possibly", attached to the sentence "It will rain today".
Read the above.

P being "Possible" is NOT THE SAME as p being "necessary"!

So I'm right about step #2 in the MOA anyway. Just because the MGB is "possible" it does not follow that it must then actually exist in some possible world.

Because being "possible" IS NOT THE SAME as being "necessary"

So the MOA violates the rules of modal logic in step #2 anyway. Yet you kept defending step #2 as being valid. It's not.

I intuitively recognized that this can't be right and I objected to it based solely on my own understanding of what is "reasonable". But now you've caused me to actually look this up to be sure, and now I found the formal Modal Logic AGREES WITH ME. Just because p is possible it does not follow that it must then exist in some possible world. That's flat-out wrong even within the rules of Modal Logic.

So the MOA isn't even following the rules of Modal Logic. It claims in step #2 that if something is possible it must exist in some possible world. That's baloney. It would need to be "necessary" for that to be true, not merely "possible".

So the MOA is all wrong in many levels anyway.

So you are wrong to claim that the MOA is "valid" in any sense. Even in terms of pure logic.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Post #80

Post by Bust Nak »

benchwarmer wrote:
Bust Nak wrote: If you only address one point in my post then let this be it: I challenge youto identify the truth value of the following statements:

a) IF Hillary won the election THEN she is the first female US president.
b) Hillary is the first female US president.
Hey Bust, I'll take a swing at this one :) First, you need to fix some tense issues:

a) IF Hillary won the election, THEN she WOULD BE the first female US president.
b) Hillary is the first female US president.

Premise (a) is fine. It defines an outcome based on the truth of the "IF" statement.
Premise (b) simply defines something as true and quickly falls apart in the real world.

These 2 premises don't support each other. (b) is the type of thing we are all getting our panties in a knot over. I know my undies are bunched up pretty good when people simply define things into existence and expect us to nod our heads and believe.

FtK and the MOA are failing for me because of things like (b).

Have a good one Bust! It's kind of refreshing to tangle with a non-theist, there's little risk of you throwing a Bible at me :)
Right, there is a second part to this, what would you say to a person who insist that (a) is false, with the justification that goes alone the lines of "Hillary is not the first female US president in reality?"

Post Reply